Safe areas North of Calhoun?

[Johann Smithy]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

...
I'd reseach the white flight out of the downtown which happened after WWII and the economic starvation of those areas that became predominently black....

Or maybe the 'predominently' black community could have picked up where the 'whites' let off. I guess they were waiting for the goverment hand outs.

Funny how other minorities have no problem with starting businesses but the 'community' always does.

J~

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by Johann Smithy

Or maybe the 'predominently' black community could have picked up where the 'whites' let off. I guess they were waiting for the goverment hand outs.

Funny how other minorities have no problem with starting businesses but the 'community' always does.

J~

.

Funny how everyone forgets about 170 (plus or minus) years of slavery, and then another 100 of Jim Crow.

At least when it's convenient to forget about it.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by Rggr

This thread was about a private citizen's desire to purchase a home. The government's responsibility to the community is irrelevant to that. You said that the person purchasing the home is involved in gentrification, or quiet racism, and supported it by your claims about the government. Again, the two are separate issues, and if the private citizen were racist, I doubt they would move into the areas being discussed. By the way, there are many new homes in the area that are reserved for people who qualify as low income.

The seller, in this case, is complicit in what you call racism by agreeing to sell. Do they have any responsibility? Don't respond with an answer about the government because this would be a deal between two private parties.

As for the other points, do you think SC is the only state that tries to attract business? A lot of the big industry has been located in the bigger cities, they still have the poor and still have complaints about gentrification.

Where did the comment about the vote come from? The residents of these areas are free to vote and have their own representatives on council.

.

So where would the present "homeowners" be without the government, which is, after all, the will of the community?

When did home ownership start to be the norm, and how is inheritence connected?

I'd suggest you look at the % of Americans who owned their own homes pre and post New Deal.

Gentrification is indeed the new racism. Ever hear of "Heirs Land", and how the state of SC has used it to kick blacks off the section of the Palmetto State that's most desired by the new South Carolinians?

And what about subsidizing bridges to develop barrier islands, while kids in Bamberg Co. go to schools that have substandard...everything?

Here's a piece on gentrification:

april 2006.pmd

[DJShymansky]

Hey, RyeS, your thread has been hijacked. The above neighborhoods still stand though, as places to look while this debate rages on without you.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

So where would the present "homeowners" be without the government, which is, after all, the will of the community?

When did home ownership start to be the norm, and how is inheritence connected?

I'd suggest you look at the % of Americans who owned their own homes pre and post New Deal.[/

What is the point of your first question? Where would non-owners be without government?

I can't give you a date as to when ownership became "the norm." It has been possible for a long time. Inheritance plays a role for some and not others.

Once again, this is entirely irrelevant to the original scenario of this post. My guess is that you have no idea of the personal circumstances involved. This seems to be a talking point that you think applies to everything.

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.Gentrification is indeed the new racism. Ever hear of "Heirs Land", and how the state of SC has used it to kick blacks off the section of the Palmetto State that's most desired by the new South Carolinians?

And what about subsidizing bridges to develop barrier islands, while kids in Bamberg Co. go to schools that have substandard...everything?]

And what does any of that have to do with the topic? We're talking about a legal purchase between two private parties. If you blend the two, your argument is without merit.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by DJShymansky

Hey, RyeS, your thread has been hijacked. The above neighborhoods still stand though, as places to look while this debate rages on without you.

You're right, DJ.

RyeS, I second the recommendation on the neighborhoods and will leave your thread alone.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by Rggr

What is the point of your first question? Where would non-owners be without government?

I can't give you a date as to when ownership became "the norm." It has been possible for a long time. Inheritance plays a role for some and not others.

Once again, this is entirely irrelevant to the original scenario of this post. My guess is that you have no idea of the personal circumstances involved. This seems to be a talking point that you think applies to everything.



And what does any of that have to do with the topic? We're talking about a legal purchase between two private parties. If you blend the two, your argument is without merit.

But hisatorians can put a date to when it became the "norm"', that was after the New Deal created a middle class.

And, contrary to what you may believe, I do know the circumstances involved when the state uses its considerable financial pressures to drive blacks out so that the condo commandos can come in. This is old school; started back in the 60's on Hilton Head.

And lastly, because I've described the situation very accurately, and therefore presented the view not heard in yuppster circles, it's not my argument, or even an argument at all- it's reality.

[RyeS]

In between the argument I think I've read about some great neighborhoods to check out. Thanks guys!

[Geechie North]

And I've tried to present what's happening to the present residents of those neighborhoods scheduled for gentrification, plus those who have already gone that route.

But, I did learn something. While reading articles on gentrification in Charleston, I came across Joe Riley's "State of The City" address from 2006. One small paragraph was devoted to the need for mixed-income housing in those areas in the developer's crosshairs.
One paragraph out of 2 pages, but still one paragraph.

Which is why Riley's political oponents call him "LBJ" (Little Black Joe)- because of his concern for the plight of those dispossessed.

Not a exactaly Kumbayah moment, but that's how it is in Charleston, S.C.